I think that’s something I need never worry about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Printable View
I think that’s something I need never worry about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Virgil--I know that you had a very different reaction to this poem than I and some others did, but that doesn't mean you can assume that I, or anyone else is "mesmorized" by the subject to the extent that we can no longer be objective about the poem's merits as a literary work. I'm not going to say I didn't have a deeply emotional reaction to this poem, but I have a deeply emotional reaction to most good poetry I can think of. That's part of the purpose of poetry. I've certainly read other poems on this, or some similarly horrific subject which I have not felt were so moving and powerful as this one. I can think of things I've read which I have definately thought of as "melodramatic" or "maudlin" and which I am conscious of as depending upon a sensationalist quality to move the reader. If I had thought this poem fell into that category I would have had no problem making a statement to the effect that, while I found the subject a powerful and difficult one well worth our remembrance, I did not find the poetry itself very interesting. This was not the case with this poem for me. It may not be the most artistically brilliant poem I've ever come across, but I don't think it's lacking in artistic merit, or that it's basing itself upon melodrama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I thought that I had begun addressing some of the poetic elements of this poem when I examined Hecht's use of the phrase "kindly light" and attempted to analyse the nature of the voice in the narrative, but you seem to claim I've been avoiding the poetics entirely in some sort of blindly overemotional response, so I'll try again:Quote:
Frankly other than KTD, I'm the only person who has pointed to aspects of the poetry.
You've missed my point entirely. I was not trying to claim that he is "forced as his only alternative to resort to maudlin, trite expressions." I was trying to say that he is intentionally using expressions that we might think of as trite, truisms in our day to day life, but using them in the context of some truly horrific events. I was interested in the way he is employing his language to create a certain effect. A phrase like the "kindly light," which comes from the refrain of a popular hymn, as well as having been used in much devotional poetry, only seems trite to us because it's something we take for granted as something we've hear over and over. In situations of extreeme horror, even situations of deep personal grief when a person doubts everything they had ever taken for granted as good in the world, such "trite" phrases suddenly take on new meaning. Have you ever noticed that Christians who pray when they are upset and afraid almost enevitably turn to the Lord's Prayer? They don't go into some long poetic discourse, they turn back to the simplicity of the words they learned by rote in Sunday school (I'm sure there are similar equivilants for other religions, I'm just not as familiar with other traditions). In a poem which revolves around the question of whether we can hold on to those good things we take for granted, I think the use of phrases we take for granted gives the poem a particular power and simplicity. Rather than trying to be more conspicously artful, which I think might come across as maudlin, Hecht chooses to employ sparing, simple phrases carefully juxtoposed with cold, hard fact.Quote:
So if I find other examples of poems that deal with horrific events and the poet finds the proper poetic language to express it, you'll admit your statement is wrong? It is a cop-out to claim that the subject matter is so horrific that he's forced as his only alternative to resort to maudlin, trite expressions.
Yes, even "quivering chin." I'm not going to say it's my favorite line in the poem or anything, but I don't find it as awful as you do. Or maybe I should say that I do find it awful, but in a different way. It's a phrase which, on its own I can entirely see you labelling as melodramatic, but I find in the context of the poem that it comes off differently. It serves to break the momentum of the stanza. In the line before we've just heard that "much casual death had drained away their souls." I think a lot of people writing such a poem might have either stopped the thought with that line or tried in some way to go on describing what that means. The absurdly pitiful, almost maudlin, character of the phrase "quivering chin" insists upon bringing the poem back again to a baser level. What anyone would crave at this point in the description of a person being buried alive is the relief of some sort of elevation, some sort of larger perspective--maybe a further comment on the souls of the two jews, maybe some sort of narrative commentary--as a relief from the intensity of the situation. What we get instead is an extreme close up of a "quivering chin," that might, anywhere else seem almost comical. I think that the absurd, really ridiculous quality of the phrase reflects something absurd and repulsively ridiculous present in the scene itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I think KTD is on to something by saying the big difference between the episodes is the religious justification. I also think she's highlighting something important in saying that the "casual" nature of the Nazi episode is what gives it a greater sense of horror. I think the "casual" is very much at the heart of this poem--what we think of casually, what we say casually and what we say and do with true conviction. This is what I've been trying to get at in discussing the use of "trite" or "cliche" language in this poem. It is the language of religion, of sympathy, of human kindness which normally we casually take for granted that is at stake in this poem. There has been a reversal in this poem. Death is now the thing described of as "casual" and the belief in "light" of any kind is no longer something that can be casually asserted. The poem denies us the balm of an elevated language, forcing us to struggle to maintain even the most basic and cliched terms--things we just assume are safe and thus not worth considering--in the face of monstrous fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTD
Yes, KTD I had noticed that. There are some interesting perspectives on that in the essays Unnamable posted the link to. One critic read this as encouraging us to identify with the Nazi perpetrators. I had not immediately read it in that light myself, but when you think about it, this poem could very easily be seen from the perspective of the Nazi holding the lugar. All we really see of him is the gloved hand and the boot, just the way you would see yourself during this scene. I think it's interesting that everyone seems to assume there is more than one guard. Unless I missed something, there's no indication that there isn't just one single Nazi perpetrator.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTD
Ok, I normally keep myself out of replying to these threads (never actually studied literature/poetry - only small knowledge about terminology etc), however I do read them - when I can follow what you are all talking about ;)
However, I have to say I really enjoyed this weeks poem. I disagree with Virgil I dont see it as trite at all, and I like the "quivering chin" image it allows me to visualize it perfectly.
Perhaps because we are both equally incomprehensible to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Why do I get the feeling so often that you are talking out of your hat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Incidentally, Virgil, they do not shoot him. They are the two Jews, who by this time have been buried alive. So who shoots the Pole, Virgil? Surprise! Its the German officer! Bet you didn't realise there was a fourth character in the picture, did you? Who do you think has been holding the gun in his hand the whole time? Who do you think has been giving all these orders? Please re-read the poem on the basis of this last enlightening bit of information. I have nothing else to say to you. I just told you because I figured: if you're going to be slinging insults at something, you might as well know what its about, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I don't think we're given any indication that anyone has been buried alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanna
The Luger shoots the Pole, not the officer. The Luger is in the Glove, and the Glove is not specified to be worn by anyone.
A Voice gives the orders, again, not specified whom the Voice belongs to.
Lu·ger n.
A German semiautomatic pistol introduced before World War I and widely used by German troops in World War II.
Do you really believe this, ktd222? I mean, do you think that the gun itself rather than the person firing it should face a trial? Perhaps you think the glove is a disembodied entity floating around in space? Are malicious gloves the real reason for the extermination of six million human beings in gas chambers?
Apparently, there was a pair of satin mittens in the dock at Nuremberg.
So what? If Hecht did not say the German soldier was holding the Luger then how are you suppose to know? Hecht is introducing a passiveness for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanna
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Have you heard of the term 'metonymy'?Quote:
Originally Posted by ktd222
When did 'trial' come into play? I thought we are discussing the poetry introduced by Hecht in this poem.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Yes. Have you heard of the word 'assumption' and the phrase 'use what your given'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanna
Ah. Right. Of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktd222
Sorry to get offf on the wrong foot with you Shanna.Quote:
Perhaps because we are both equally incomprehensible to you?
Why do I get the feeling so often that you are talking out of your hat?
My first statement you quote, I was just being a little facetious. I don't think a little humor is that bad. The second quote I dispute. I gave quite a detailed presentation of my thinking, and frankly more detailed than anyone who likes the poem. If you wish to not talk out of your hat, you should take point by point my arguemnets and refute them. I don't see you doing that.
Incidentally, Virgil, they do not shoot him. They are the two Jews, who by this time have been buried alive. So who shoots the Pole, Virgil? Surprise! Its the German officer! Bet you didn't realise there was a fourth character in the picture, did you? Who do you think has been holding the gun in his hand the whole time? Who do you think has been giving all these orders? Please re-read the poem on the basis of this last enlightening bit of information. I have nothing else to say to you. I just told you because I figured: if you're going to be slinging insults at something, you might as well know what its about, right?
Sorry if I messed up the antecedants of my pronouns. I am quite aware there is at least one Nazi (I prefer to use that term rather than German; I don't wish to disparge a whole people) officer. I don't think I flung any insults at the poem. I said there were good elements to it that if no one points out by the end of the week I will. I said I am in sympathy with Hecht's moral point. It's just my appraisal of the poem is not as high as everyone else's.
Hey, its only Tuesday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil